The purpose of the Detail is to help keep you informed of the current
state of affairs in the latent print community, to provide an avenue to
circulate original fingerprint-related articles, and to announce
important events as they happen in our field.

we looked at an upheld appeal on 6th Amendment right to confront a verifier in ACE-V process.

THIS WEEK

Clive Richards brings us news of a free University of Toronto lecture series available online, portions of which might be of interest to some latent print examiners:__________________________________________

The University of Toronto has a lecture series available to the public called Controversies in Forensic Science and Medicine: Towards Resolution in the 21st Century. The series is available on the below website via a webcam archive and covers numerous topics most of which are being challenged with comments of Junk Science.

Simon Cole explains that fingerprints are not unique and therefore cannot be individualised. A further explanation is available here in an email response to me:-“Thanks for your comments, and thanks for attending my lecture.

I agree entirely with what you say below. The approach I am proposing would result in the use of more evidence, but that evidence would be of lesser certainty. Indeed, it would necessarily open the door to what are called "probable" latent print associations. At the same time, it would do away with associations that are claimed to be "absolute." You are correct that this would lead to greater use of latent print evidence, not less, but that this evidence would always be couched with less certainty than it is today. As many, including Champod, have noted, this would end the current practice of discarding "less-than-absolute", but nonetheless probative latent print associations.

While I understand the current practice seems clearer and cleaner, and I understand historically why the profession conceptualized the practice this way, the reason we make this proposal is that we think the profession's current sense that associations over a certain threshold of consistent ridge detail are absolute and therefore render it unnecessary to worry about probability is, in fact, a mirage: the evidence is probabilistic whether you know it or not.

Finally, I also agree with you, as I remarked in Toronto, that the proposed changes may well engender confusion in the courts as fact-finders are tasked with weighing the probative value of, say, a 95% certain association, instead of the seemingly much more simple task of weighing the probative value of a "100% certain" association. Again, I would argue that the seeming clarity and simplicity of the current system is illusory because, in fact, the associations are not "100% certain."

So, while I agree with you that communicating the probative value of probabilistic evidence to fact-finders will generate difficult issues that have yet to be worked out, I do not think the fact that there may be difficulties and confusion is a good rationale for keeping the current system in which the probative value of latent print evidence is routinely overstated.

In a sense, we can think about 2 competing ideas: (1) the accuracy of the evidence; and (2) the clarity with which that accuracy is conveyed. As a thought experiment, consider Professor Richard Friedman's proposal that hair comparison evidence that has been shown to be correct only 10% of the time should still be admissible in court, so long as that jury is told that it's correct only 10% of the time. I find his argument persuasive. Compare it to the current situation in which we don't really know how accurate hair comparison is, and we tell the jury something like "it's highly accurate."

Sincerely yours, Simon”

After the lecture Professor Mariana Valverde comments that fingerprint experts are low status people and have a simplified view of laws and science as opposed to more qualified and educated people. We are at the bottom of the totem pole and are hired by the FBI to give conclusive evidence that we believe judges want to hear.

Friday January 22, 2010

Professor Jim Fraser

Imagination, rhetoric and reality in forensic science

Jim Fraser explains that most subjects are not really science and should follow the European model of calling the examination of scene evidence as "Crime Scene Technology" instead of Forensic Science and calling witnessed 'skills witnesses' instead of experts. This would move fingerprint comparison away from a science to more of a discipline and therefore remove error rates, statistical analysis and challenges that no one has seen every fingerprint in the World so cannot provide draw a conclusive finding.

Friday November 27, 2009

Professor Martin Evison

Facial Evidence for the Courts: is it a pseudo-science?

Martin provides an excellent presentation on Facial Recognition, field studies he has done and a historical review of ethic origin and skull shapes together with movement of tribes.

An excellent information session and case study on using insects to determine time of death.

Friday March 20, 2009

Dr. Michael Seto

Assessing the risk of reoffending posed by sex offenders

Friday February 27, 2009

John Lentini

The State of the Art in Fire Investigation

A major challenge to fire cause determination evidence.

__________________________________________

Feel free to pass The Detail along to other examiners for Fair Use. This is a not-for-profit newsletter FOR friction ridge examiners, BY friction ridge examiners. The website is open for all to visit!

If you have not yet signed up to receive the Weekly Detail in YOUR e-mail inbox, go ahead and join the list now so you don't miss out! (To join this free e-mail newsletter, enter your name and e-mail address on the following page: http://www.clpex.com/Subscribe.htm You will be sent a Confirmation e-mail... just click on the link in that e-mail, or paste it into an Internet Explorer address bar, and you are signed up!) If you have problems receiving the Detail from a work e-mail address, there have been past issues with department e-mail filters considering the Detail as potential unsolicited e-mail. Try subscribing from a home e-mail address or contact your IT department to "whitelist" the Weekly Detail. Members may unsubscribe at any time. If you have difficulties with the sign-up process or have been inadvertently removed from the list, e-mail me personally at kaseywertheim@aol.com and I will try to work things out.